Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

From:

Stephen J. Turnbull

Subject:

Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

Date:

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:35:39 +0900

Stefan Monnier writes:
> > What I proposed was a more generic concept where use of signatures and
> > the EOL convention would (at least to the user) appear as buffer-local
> > variables.
Note the *at least to the user*.
> [For EOLs], I disagree: EOL processing definitely need to take
> place when talking to subprocesses,
Yes, it has to *take place* when talking to subprocesses, but I don't
see why it should be controlled by proliferation of (user-visible)
coding systems.